Recent evidence suggests that women are more likely to be selected for professorships when they apply. This female advantage may be partly due to the widely promoted gender-equality policy of having a substantial female quota in selection committees. Yet, research has rarely considered whether male and female committee members evaluate applicants for professorships differently. We address this research gap based on a large factorial survey experiment with German university professors from different disciplines. We asked these professors to rate how qualified hypothetical applicants are for full professorships and the likelihood of inviting these applicants for a job interview. We find that female applicants have an modest advantage both in their perceived qualifications and in their likelihood of being invited—with no differences between the male and female professors assessing them. Importantly, however, the female advantage in invitation does not apply to highly qualified female applicants but only to female applicants with low and mediocre perceived qualifications—again, there is no difference between male and female professors. Moreover, our analyses do not indicate a Matilda effect, that is, we do not find a co-authorship penalty for female applicants.

中文翻译：

---

教授在评估教授职位申请人时的性别偏见

最近的证据表明，女性在申请时更有可能被选为教授职位。这种女性优势可能部分是由于广泛推行的性别平等政策，即在遴选委员会中拥有大量女性配额。然而，研究很少考虑男性和女性委员会成员对教授职位申请人的评价是否不同。我们基于对来自不同学科的德国大学教授的大型因子调查实验来解决这一研究差距。我们请这些教授评价假想申请者获得正式教授职位的合格程度，以及邀请这些申请者参加工作面试的可能性。我们发现，女性申请者在她们的资历认知和被邀请的可能性方面略有优势——评估她们的男女教授之间没有差异。然而，重要的是，女性在邀请中的优势并不适用于高素质的女性申请人，而仅适用于资历低和平庸的女性申请人——同样，男女教授之间没有区别。此外，我们的分析并未表明 Matilda 效应，也就是说，我们没有发现女性申请人的共同作者惩罚。男女教授之间没有区别。此外，我们的分析并未表明 Matilda 效应，也就是说，我们没有发现女性申请人的共同作者惩罚。男女教授之间没有区别。此外，我们的分析并未表明 Matilda 效应，也就是说，我们没有发现女性申请人的共同作者惩罚。